77 comments:

Strange story. I saw a similar one in the paper this morning that buries the context of these cuts. These "thrifty measures" are on top of much larger cuts they're looking to make throughout the budget (the "line by line" talk).

Whether they will actually make those bigger cuts will obviously remain to be seen, but even Obama admitted that this $100m should be seen as symbolic and a first step in changing the culture.

They're spending money faster than you think. I'm receiving Social Security and yesterday, I was sent a notice letting me know that under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I'll be getting (and everyone else receiving Soc. Sec.) a one-time payment of $250. It's almost hard to believe the money that is being spent.

Tomorrow there will be a statement by the teleprompter that the media and enemies of the state got it wrong. They misprinted and misrepresented what the president meant. The President really meant 100 Billion dollars!

Try to keep up, Jason. I know after pallet loads of 8 billion in cash could be allowed to just vanish into Iraq without a peep from a president or his supporters, it can be confusing to see one distinguish between increasing useful spending and decreasing wasteful spending.

First of all, earmarks are earmarks. The Congress wants to make sure that certain things get done with the appropriated money, not just let the Executive Branch piss it all away. Earmarks are thus a form of micromanagement.

Second, earmarks are generally for things that most folks would agree that the people beyond the Beltway actually need. Here is the "List of 2005 Earmarks for WYOMING" from omb.gov. Note that these Congress-specified expenditures are all for road or transportation improvements, needed by everyone who lives in or drives through Wyoming, or who uses goods that have transited Wyoming. I picked Wyoming because their earmarks came closest to the $100 million figure.

It's funny, Republicans have made a huge issue of Porkbusters and other sideshows about spending which account for saving say $25 to be generous of the $60,000 a year. So, not buying that Quarter Pounder w/ cheese combo is silly but saving one meal for two at Applebee's is down right prudent.

Giving 4,000 Soc. Sec. recipients $250, costs $1,000,000. 40,000 costs $10,000,000. 400,000 costs $100,000,000. There's a hundred million right there. How many people are on Soc. Sec.? I have a hard time realizing why everyone isn't bothered by this.

When your agency's mission statement amounts to saving your corner of the world, how can you cut anything? It takes more people, more stuff, more travel, more technology, more everything to save the world. It's all important. Just ask them. They can't do their jobs with one dime less.

"Changing the culture" would require informing people they are either not needed at all, or not needed at the federal level.

My visual is a set of odd, reptilian creatures protectively circling a pile of indefinite treasure. They squint at me, suspicious, as I near the treasure. "Don't you want to cure disease/help abused children/improve education/change lives/defend the country/do basic research/[insert pet cause here]?" they hiss.

"Well, yeah," I'm forced to answer "but I'm getting a little concerned because your pile is so big. There's not much left in my pile." I see another reptile slither over and throw more of my treasure onto the pile. "Hey, I need that!" I say indignantly and point to the growing pile.

"You are selfish," intones the largest lizard as he leans to the pile and carefully selects a worn paperclip, "we would have used this to revitalize a riverfront for an entire city, but you may have it back because it is sooo important to you."

As I reach forward to take the paperclip another lizard on rollerskates snatches it out of my hand, calling back "Thanks! We need to host a conference on writing grants for hosting conferences. Save the children!"

Well $100 million dollars is twice as much as the $50 million increase in the National Endowment for the Arts that Obama proposed as part of the stimulus package.

There were at least 1000 blogposts condemning that $50 million dollars. I know that many of Ann's commenters thought that the $50 million for the NEA was HUGE issue, and spent a lot of hot air talking about it.

So can we please call all of those people who complained about the $50 million for the NEA and now saying that $100 million in cuts is meaningless - can we call those people hypocrites?

YES WE CAN.

P.S. - I said before that the NEA increase was not where people should be focusing their attention, and I'll say the same for the this $100 million cut. It's very, very, very minor in the scheme of things.

Dr Evil: Gentlemen, it's come to my attention that a breakaway Russian Republic called Kreplachistan will be transferring a nuclear warhead to the United Nations in a few days. Here's the plan. We get the warhead, and we hold the world ransom...(dramatic pause)...FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Because conservatives had a cow and made a HUGE deal about it, and Congress spent hours upon hours debating it.

Because people like Peter Bella think that $50 million is an ENORMOUS amount of money, but people like Peter Bella also think that $100 million is a TINY amount of money. Of course, people like Peter Bella are also not rational.

I doubt most people will even be aware of all this hullabaloo. They'll hear a blurb on the local news about "Obama cutting wasteful government spending" and that's about it. Result: Obama viewed as government watchdog, unlike those awful Republicans.

In terms of impact to the budget, such costcutting is almost as ridiculous and picayune as worrying about earmarks.what is totally ROFLMAO material is the ways those agencies claim they are going to save their imaginary 100 million.

My DHS wife came home last night and said that the innovative cost cutting measures Janet N promised were more than merely amusing:

Conservatives are just having a hissyfit, because Obama has already turned around the economy. That's why the stock market is up signficantly since he took office. The S&P 500 is on pace for about an 15% return this year.

And we all know that the stock market is the only measure that counts when it comes to the economy. I know, because Glenn Reynolds said so.

Rocketeer - It's hard to take you seriously, when conservatives acted like $50 million was a huge deal. When idiot bloggers like Glenn Reynolds talk about porkulus and saving $10,000 here and $5,000 there. What a joke.

If you want to save money - then cut real programs. Like how about eliminating a $1 trillion war for starters.

Let's eliminate Social Security. Personally, if old people starve and die - I don't give a shit - it's their own damn fault for being lazy and not saving their own money. Poor old people deserve to die.

Comparing earmarks or specific expenditures to this $100 million is disingenuous.

It perfectly fine to argue over small expenditures, but when you're spending literally trillions of dollars and people are taking you to task for it, countering your critics by calling a press conference to say you're cutting costs, and they total $100 million is just silly.

DTL - do you think that government spending is a problem or not? You've said things that seem to indicate you recognize the issue here, but spend 99% of your time attempting to ridicule the people who are actually worried about it.

Does hypocrisy matter more to you than the fiscal solvency of the U.S.?

Trevor : I know after pallet loads of 8 billion in cash could be allowed to just vanish into Iraq without a peep from a president or his supporters, it can be confusing to see one distinguish between increasing useful spending and decreasing wasteful spending.Obama was asked if some of the spending that was going on was wasteful, and he said that the purpose of spending is spending.

I've heard much better defenses of Obama from conservatives than from supposed Obama supporters. It's sad when all they can ever say is "He's better than Bush," or "He can make complete sentences." Anyone would be better than Bush, anyone can make complete sentences. How is doing something anyone can do a positive? I'd like to see excellence in my President, not the bare minimum.

DTL, in the one case, the 50 million for the NEA was part of a host of unnecessary spending within the so-called "stimulus". It notoriety was not in the size, but more in the uselessness of the money for the stated purpose. It could have been a dollar. It was money mis-spent, emblemmatic of the much larger amount of mis-spent money in the stimulus.

By comparison, this 100 million dollars is an entirety unto itself. It is not as if this 100 million is one small parcel of a much larger budget cutting package; it's the package!.

“Personally, if old people starve and die - I don't give a shit - it's their own damn fault for being lazy and not saving their own money. Poor old people deserve to die.”

First they came for the old. I was not old. I did not care.Then they came for the poor. I was not poor. I did not care.Then they came for the poor and the old. I was not poor and old. I did not care.Then the came for DTL. Who gives a rats ass.

My DHS wife came home last night and said that the innovative cost cutting measures Janet N promised were more than merely amusing:

We need an "Obama is like Reagan" tag.

My ex-BIL worked for OSHA when Reagan was elected, inspecting construction sites. Reagan wanted to cut government spending, so they took the inspectors' cars away. But the job sites still had to be inspected, so my BIL used his personal car, turning in his mileage for reimbursement.

Hey, I wonder if the FBI could save money by eliminating cars for their agents?

Rocketeer - It's hard to take you seriously, when conservatives acted like $50 million was a huge deal.It was for the NEA. And sold as stimulus, which it most assuredly was not.

And please spare me any ineffective barbs about "seriousness" when you say things like "Obama's already turned the economy around."

Periodically, I make the mistake of trying to engage you constructively, after you've repeatedly demonstrated it's impossible, and after you've repreatedly demonstrate your irrationality and lack of seriousness.

Guess it's time for another break from reasoning with unreasonableness personified.

The jealousy issue about who gets more money than I got is what we have Cogressional politics for... the old crab bucket story in action. Today's Massive new wealth transfer, being done by inflating American dollars until we will beg for a new World Currency issued by a World Bank authorized by a World Government, is the Obama story being analysed here. Comparing one set of "wing nut" complaints to the other set is like comparing firecrackers toa Hydrogen Bomb.

This is a monthly reminder to please, please. please ignore DTL. There is no point, whatever it is simply makes stuff up, and you will waste your time finding the correct information, only to have more, different filth spew from its keyboard.

"First of all, earmarks are earmarks. The Congress wants to make sure that certain things get done with the appropriated money, not just let the Executive Branch piss it all away. Earmarks are thus a form of micromanagement."

Note how he cherry picked picked Wyoming for his examples of earmarks. The same state that has probably never sent a Democrat to Congress (and was one of the states that the LDS promised the Republicans if they allowed Utah into the Union). Why not pick CA, with Feinstein and Boxer, or even NV with Harry Reid? Or, horror upon horror, PA with John Murtha?

Yes, Congress micromanages with earmarks. Which is why the levees broke in NOLA during Katrina, after all their Corps of Engineering money was earmarked to be spent elsewhere in the state on more "important" projects.

If the agencies were allowed to spend the money allocated to them without such strings, it is highly likely that it would be spent more wisely than it is now, buying votes for Congress members.

Since I mentioned John Murtha above, I should point out the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., to which its namesake has diverted $200 million in federal funds over the last 10 years, during which time, passenger traffic has dropped in half there.

It looks like about the only using the airport any more is the esteemed Representative himself.

Why not pick CA, with Feinstein and Boxer, or even NV with Harry Reid? Or, horror upon horror, PA with John Murtha? Tsk tsk tsk. Why assume bad faith on the part of your political opponents?*

The article Althouse linked to gave examples of how little 100 million dollars was. I pointed out it was almost the same as a year's worth of earmarks for Wyoming. Further, none of the money earmarked for Wyoming was frivolous.

From the article:

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:

_Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.

_4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.

_Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.

*I don't assume bad faith on the part of Republicans, even though the Republican Lee Atwater invented dirty tricks. (Karl Rove learned well from the Master. No David Axelrod could have spread the rumor that Hillary Clinton gave birth to a pickaninny.)

As Buford points out, the markets are not up since Obama took over. If one wants to pick a market, like S&P as an example, then they might consider the word "significant" means something to people who study statistics.

And I'll point out again that the NYSE industrial average was around 14,000 before the Democratic controlled Congress took over.

As for FLS, if Obama did as well as the 300 lb guy losing 7 lbs on Atkins, then Obama would cut $80 billion from his budget. So your analogy would be like the fat guy saying he lost .1 ounce on Atkins.

As I pointed out, picking Wyoming is likely cherry picking, since it is one of the two or three reddest states in the Union. As such, it was likely much less likely that its Congress members would get the sort of egregious pork and earmarks that the most powerful Democrats have pulled into their states recently.

I will admit that earmarks, per se, are not that significant as far as a percentage of the budget. But they are when it comes to Congressional corruption.

So, instead of defending John Murtha, Barbara Feinstein, Harry Reid, et al. and their egregious earmarks, FLS goes back to his misdirection using solidly Republican Wyoming as his example.

And, I guess since we are talking de minimis here, it is probably ok that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee are both tax cheats, since the amount that they cheated by doesn't show up even as rounding error.